[I’m in an Atlanta hotel, waiting for breakfast and needing to re-arrange my notes for a legal ethics and technology seminar later this morning. No time before the knock on the door to get the Warm-up going, but at least I can add one of the several Comments of the Day stuck on the runway, just like my plane was last night in D.C….]
Carcarwhite takes another step in our ongoing exploration of the confusing “it’s sexual harassment if the woman doesn’t like the unrequested sexual advance, it’s not if she does,but if she changes her mind over tbe next several decades or so she can rewrite history and maybe wreck a career or reputation” standard that has been on vivid display since the unveiling of The Harvey Weinstein Ethics Train Wreck.
Here is her Comment of the Day on the post, NOW Monica Lewinsky Says She Was Abused And Sexually Harassed:
I’m horrified at many of my gender who are crying for equal rights and then act like little whiny babies.
We want equality but we can’t pay 15 a month for our own birth control. We want equal this and equal that then we use (some of us) the flavor of the week to plead our victim case. Hurting our fellow citizens male and female because of this.
I was kissed by Eddie Van Halen back stage in the 80’s, on the lips, a few times. He was tipsy and happy and took a selfie of us before seflies were selfies, and I’ve actually had friends on the Left tell me I should my story publicly. And they say I am ENABLING THIS BEHAVIOR by not going forward! This is laughable.
I was giddy, a fan, and I’m not going to embarrass myself or other women by jumping on this RIDICULOUS bandwagon.
I have hung out with enough famous people to know not only to women like getting the attention but I’ve seem them throw them elves at powerful men in every place the are. From pastors to actors, women want attention from successful men (sometimes) and to deny this is lying.
Yes, our interpretation often is dependent on the man doing the advances or even giving a complement. If we like him, “Yay!” if not, Look out! We now sadly have a movement capable of ruining the lives of perfectly normal people who had no ill intent.
#MeToo really is embarrassing. And it’s wrong.
Ethics Alarms 
After somehow getting invited to a B+ list pool party at an Acapulco hotel in the spring of 1985, I had my picture taken with then current SI Swimsuit model Kim Alexis; she gave birth ~ 9 months later.
Incuriously, that hasn’t been enough to get Gloria Allred to return my calls.
Amen. This is the crucial part the left/media leave out of Donald Trump’s infamous taped “grab ‘em by the p**sy” comment: “when you’re a star they let you.” How many of these shrill nincompoops have shrieked “HE WAS BRAGGING ABOUT SEXUALLY ASSAULTING WOMEN!” No, he wasn’t, morons. “They let you” = consent = the textbook definition of NOT sexual assault. When you’re a star there are lots of women who would love to be grabbed by the p**sy.
As a woman who worked in a car part manufacturer for 21 years, then worked in the Realty and Home Construction businesses. I can confirm every word you said is true. It was sickening to watch women throw themselves at men in power and later cry foul.
Good comment. Well done.
OFFS. What you described is NOT “Me Too.” Just because some people take it too far, does not mean that it is not legitimate. Please take it from someone who had to leave a job and have her career derailed for multiple years because of this crap. It happens, and it happens every damn day.
What Spartan said. There are many women who agree that #metoo has been abused, but to label the whole movement embarrassing and wrong is just embarrassing and wrong. Lives and careers have been ruined by men in power who abuse it. It’s about time they get called out.
You have moved the goalposts. This is about men who are getting called out DECADES after the fact, without proof, just on the say-so of someone who may have consented at the time.
Of course bad actors (terrible pun, I know) should be confronted. That has always been true, though, and did not need this movement to be a valid (if at times painful) thing.
If a man isn’t punished for his bad behavior until decades later, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or that it wasn’t reported.
Industries that rely on rainmakers protect these assholes and get rid of the women who reported the behavior.
We are in violent agreement that this happens.
Still does not excuse the allegations that are costing men their careers without proof.
People are crappy. There has to be a better way to address than the mob condemnation model of #metoo
“Still does not excuse the allegations that are costing men their careers without proof.”
Sure it does. Unless someone is under contract, they can be fired for ANY REASON at all, as long as that reason is not illegal. An employer is well within its rights to terminate even a suspected sexual harasser (but don’t worry, this never happens — it’s usually the woman who is encouraged to leave.) That is the law in every state. Further, the man in question is protected by the statute of limitations because any civil claim will be moot because so much time has passed — so it actually is very rare for a woman to speak up decades later because there is no benefit to her. Finally, if a woman today accuses a man of sexual harassment that occurred decades ago, he is protected and can bring a claim against her NOW for defamation.
You are either being deliberately dense or refuse to see my point, so there is no point in continuing this conversation.
None of what you said addressed my point
I see your point, I just don’t agree with you that the men are harmed significantly. If he has been accused unjustly, then he can sue. If he has been accused justly, then it’s awesome that he loses his job. As for the “mob mentality,” please note the vast majority of women in the workplace do report the harassment. The company’s HR department and counsel deal with these situations as one-offs, and any remedy is contingent on a non-disclosure agreement (or she just finds new employment). These women normally are powerless individually, but collectively they might have a voice. Now, if you are asking me to comment on that it’s ridiculous for women to go nuts over every little transgression or mixed signal, then yes, I agree. But who looks bad in these instances are the women, not the men.
But where’s the line? What keeps this otherwise legitimate movement from tumbling off the cliff of insanity? And if you can’t point to some kind of delineation, then wasn’t the insanity inevitable? And if the insanity was inevitable, then how intelligent is it to tie your horse to it?
Quia fécit mihi mágna qui pótens est: et sánctum nómen eius.
Sicut erat in princípio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculórum. Amen.
____________________
Some quotes by Andrea Dworkin. One must ‘get inside’ her comments to see what she is reacting to and what she is really saying. This reveals (IMO) a good deal about the feminist resistance.
“Woman is not born: she is made. In the making, her humanity is destroyed. She becomes symbol of this, symbol of that: mother of the earth, slut of the universe; but she never becomes herself because it is forbidden for her to do so.”
“Being female in this world means having been robbed of the potential for human choice by men who love to hate us. One does does not make choices in freedom. Instead, one conforms in body type and behavior and values to become an object of male sexual desire, which requires an abandonment of a wide-ranging capacity for choice…
“Men too make choices. When will they choose not to despise us?”
“The normal f**k by a normal man is taken to be an act of invasion and ownership undertaken in a mode of predation. Woman have been chattels to man as wives, as prostitutes, as sexual and reproductive servants. Being owned and being fu**ed are or have been virtually synonymous experiences in the lives of woman. He owns you – he fu**s you. The fu**ing conveys the quality of ownership – he owns you inside out.”
When I read Andrea Dworkin (‘Intercourse’) I realized all on the sudden what her issue really is. Her argument is essentially against Mother Nature, a cruel and horrifying tyrant that has turned the female of the species into the breeder of all life and life-forms. If ‘nature abhors a vacuum’ it is all the more true that ‘nature abhors a virgin’.
It is really quite simple when one refers to the natural model: there is an absolute and unrelenting force that demands and insists that procreation occur, and nature itself, with her hormones and chemicals, with her terrifying sexual providence, absolutely insists that a female participate in the biological ritual and ‘game’ that is nothing less than nature’s game.
Andrea Dworkin, in some strange way, came to realize that Nature is horrid and violent and unrelenting, and seen through this lens so is the ‘reality’ of woman’s position within a natural order. When she fully realizes who she is, what she is, the realization is too much to bear. She does not wish to be a woman.
What Andrea Dworkin did not fully realize though is that it is men and man’s world that has given her options that Mother Nature (Mommy Dearest) would never have given her and indeed could not ever give her.
It is not ‘the world of woman’ that opened new frontiers of being, but quite definitely and beyond all doubt, the world that Occidental man carved out for woman anew.
The core issue here is rebellion.
Omg how did I miss this?
wow.
If it helped anyone at all, I’m humbled. Love this blog and the work you and all the readers do. (Left or right or in between)
I found you by accident and this is the ONLY place I’ve seen intelligent discourse and it’s refreshing.
Thank you jack, I know you work hard and it’s much appreciated.